It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
high rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: Some people think DRM free means client free, and it does not.
It does. By definition. If you're required to use a specific piece of software to be able to obtain your copy, digital means are used to manage/restrict your rights regarding said copy.
high rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: Some people think DRM free means client free, and it does not.
avatar
Cavalary: It does. By definition. If you're required to use a specific piece of software to be able to obtain your copy, digital means are used to manage/restrict your rights regarding said copy.
Agreed, 100%. If a client application is required to play a game or access in-game content, that is DRM by any definition. If the client is optional (as GOG's is supposed to be), then it is not. The mandatory/optional distinction is critical.
high rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: My main argument is that clients are not inherently DRM.
For many people the argument has already changed itself from "what is DRM in theory?" to "what actually matters in practise to those deliberately seeking out a bullsh*t-free way of backing up games"? In response to the endless "inconvenience isn't DRM" cop-outs, removing DRM has always included increasing convenience - ie, the effort of seeking out NoCD's to remove DRM from old games is outweighed by the gain in permanently no longer needing to insert a disc / enter a serial number / mess about with a code disc / manual check to play each time, or being able to mod an unprotected .exe. For the bulk of PC gaming history, it's been increased convenience / reduced hassle that's part of what's driven a desire for DRM-Free, so "no matter how inconvenient it's still DRM-Free" doesn't quite ring true in 2020 the way it used to 15 years ago when the underlying intention for today's Galaxy 2.0 is seemingly to almost continuously "accidentally on purpose" artificially degrade the offline installer experience by choice.

What's happening now is the bullsh*t factor of gating single-player content behind not-so-optional clients : (1. First you have to research which "not DRM but (tm)..." games require a client on semi-complete community lists, 2. Then you download and install a client (may not be possible on public / work PC's), 3. Then for those running a Whitelist firewall, you have to create a firewall exception for the client, 4. Then you run the client and use that to download a game, 5. Then as a potential separate secondary stage, you download the "Not DRM, but (tm)..." 'bonus content' deliberately excluded from the offline installer, 6. Then you download and install InnoSetup / 7zip, 7. Then you research and include any dependencies the game requires (.NET, VCRedist, etc) / silent registry keys (including OS compatibility settings), 8. Finally, you create your own InnoSetup script and use that / 7zip to create your own installers that includes the bonus content that GOG should have created themselves in the first place...

...ends up with Galaxy imposing almost as many "hoops to jump through" on those not wanting to use clients than competing platforms DRM itself that people buy at GOG to get away from, and when it absurdly becomes more of a hassle to backup such "DRM-Free" versions than it is to download a competing platform's cracked DRM version, then "well it's still DRM-Free in spite of Galaxy" becomes completely meaningless in practise when this situation only arose because of Galaxy. (There was no "GOG DRM / 2nd class citizen problem" during 2009-2014). It's also clearly not why people make a deliberate conscious choice to buy GOG games for the offline installers in practise, and certainly not the "future" that people want GOG to start pushing via gradual passive low-level acceptance of diluting "Not DRM, but (tm)..." into pragmatically meaninglessness nitpicking.
Post edited December 27, 2020 by AB2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: Signing into something to download something is not DRM. If it were, every game on GOG has DRM.
avatar
Lifthrasil: My problem with this isn't that you have to sign in to your account to download it. It's that you have to do so through Galaxy. Which clearly breaks the 'Galaxy always optional' promise. Galaxy is mandatory for that DLC.
avatar
malikhis: "Nex Machina " is the only game here that actually requires galaxy,
avatar
Lifthrasil: But does it require Galaxy for single player or only for multiplayer?
]
Sounds like it requires it for single player... Cyberpunk required galaxy for goodies, but not ownership. Don't own the game, sounds like it needs Galaxy to store achievements or stuff and that this affects the singleplayer game. I was just commenting on how "online-only content", while a horrid practice, doesn't really meet the classical definition of managing "digital rights," since you don't need to actually own the game to get the locked online-only content.

avatar
malikhis: Yeah, the meaning of "DRM" has diversified in such a way that the term no longer follows the root "Digital Rights Management."
avatar
teceem: "everything I don't like is DRM" doesn't diversify the term DRM, just like pancake doesn't diversify the term "planet".
I agree, hence why I pointed out "literally" is now literally it's own antonym because of how language changes. You cannot prevent language from changing though. Ultimately, DRM means "what ever the hell I feel like it means" because people cannot agree on what exactly constitutes DRM.
Much like StingingVelvet, I do not see much of a distinction between the client and browser for retrieving DRM-free installers. Either way, you will need permission to download the game in the first place. However, once that installer is downloaded, you can copy, use, and modify it as you wish. GOG nor anyone else can prevent you from enjoying your game.

That said, the requirement to have the GOG client and connected to online services to activate ingame content is DRM. You are now dependent on GOG's good will and ability to supply you that content. I buy DRM-free to tell corporate jerkoffs to not mess with my gaming experience, be it by shutting down services or denying me the right to play my game in its entirety.

When I buy games DRM-free, it is because I want to legally enjoy a game many years or decades down the road.
high rated
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Much like StingingVelvet, I do not see much of a distinction between the client and browser for retrieving DRM-free installers
Do you have a download link for Galaxy for Linux? Thanks.
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Much like StingingVelvet, I do not see much of a distinction between the client and browser for retrieving DRM-free installers
avatar
BrianSim: Do you have a download link for Galaxy for Linux? Thanks.
Go ahead and torrent the games you own. Frankly, if GOG can't be bothered to do due vigilance for their paying customers, then they have no business complaining if unofficial means are used for acquiring purchased games.

GOG should fix their distribution - be it by site or client. I myself switched to Galaxy since the browser downloading became faulty, so it is disappointing that Linux users are getting doubly shafted.
high rated
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Much like StingingVelvet, I do not see much of a distinction between the client and browser for retrieving DRM-free installers. Either way, you will need permission to download the game in the first place. However, once that installer is downloaded, you can copy, use, and modify it as you wish. GOG nor anyone else can prevent you from enjoying your game.
The issue isn't where we're at, it's where we are going. GOG have dropped so many other things that the day they stop providing offline installers via web browser is the same day they'll sign the death certificate for providing offline installers via Galaxy for the simple reason that 99% of the effort into making them is actually creating them (setting up the InnoSetup script, gathering together dependencies, registry keys, compiling the files, placing the files onto the servers, etc), and not that last 1% where a URL is automatically created in the game library to already existing files that requires zero effort). It makes zero sense in terms of saving time, etc, why they would ever scrap URL's for direct download yet (making Galaxy compulsory) yet still put in the work of making them via Galaxy vs "The Galaxy Way" installation. It would also instantly kill off Linux, Raspberry Pi, etc, support as there would literally be no way of acquiring those .sh files.

The second problem is the "all you need to do is copy / paste the files" just isn't that simple anymore. New games may not write "internal" (read directly by the game) registry keys, but they are still often written for "external" reasons (right-click on .exe -> Properties -> Compatibility settings are stored in the registry, GameSave Manager looks up install location registry keys, 3rd party utilities, eg, Mod Managers or OpenMW, etc, use them to "find" their related installed game). And as I spoke to Stinging Velvet about the other day though, there's unfortunately a newer problem arising when games are written for new "Player Data Storage" (platform-neutral) API's that sound good on the surface when they ease developer workload for dual Steam / Epic cloud-save handling, but when they basically offload the whole save-game handling to the client, then no client running = game doesn't save. So we're back to Games For Windows Live cr*p again...

At the moment only a few games have that (like the new Epic versions of Alien Isolation & Journey plus a dozen or so on Steam like Cognition, Ittle Dew, Sanctum, etc), but if that starts to get more mainstreamed (due to simplifying dual Steam / Epic releases) and if GOG adopts the same thing (entirely possible given the "we plan to sell Epic games via Galaxy") and scraps offline installers ("because everyone is using Galaxy, right?"), then GOG games potentially using that will also stop working properly without Galaxy. It's yet another thing to research, yet another thing to be aware of that, yet another thing that takes time to test for with client-installed games, etc, that goes against everything the GOG offline installers are all about. And this is exactly why over-pushing Galaxy today is a bad idea even if you can (for now) download offline installers through it.

avatar
Sabin_Stargem: When I buy games DRM-free, it is because I want to legally enjoy a game many years or decades down the road.
So do I. Hence why offline installers are a must for the simple reason offline installers have to work "as is". Pushing everything through Galaxy however, involves a lot more slippery slopes of shoving more and more game code into the client which has pretty much always quietly been at odds with DRM-Free / game preservation all along.
Post edited December 28, 2020 by AB2012
high rated
avatar
mrkgnao: Didn't you already agree above that the case of the CP2077 rewards is indeed "ehhhhh I guess" DRM, since it requires activation on every playthrough?
avatar
StingingVelvet: I made it very clear: I am talking about downloading through Galaxy files which never need Galaxy again after you do so. There is no "activation" required and I don't know where you're getting that. If the dumb outfits need Galaxy again that obviously is not what I am talking about.
Could people stop with this "Galaxy surely downloads some file that enables "my rewards" DLC *by installer*" BS?
Perhaps I am missing something, but so far from what I gathered there is no proof that any "installer" for those "my rewards" is being downloaded by Galaxy, let alone one that can be installed offline.
Afaik there are API calls involved (handled through Galaxy) that based on online verification change something in a save file.
I may be wrong but that's the picture I currently gathered.

avatar
BrianSim: Do you have a download link for Galaxy for Linux? Thanks.
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Go ahead and torrent the games you own.
And just WHY should legitimate customers be forced to use illegitimate ways of obtaining their lawfully acquired games?
At that point why not just refund and get it on a platform that does not impose arbitrary customers divisions and does not openly lie to the face?

BTW (to everybody): I just encountered GOG server overload messages just now :P Are people storming GOG in one way or another right now? (say: DDoS, mass refunds, mass forum activities or whatever)
high rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: . However you're never going to convince me it's DRM to use a client to download files that forever work without it afterward. Sorry.
Well, there is no need to convince you of anything. You can close your eyes all you want and you can accept all the 'not REALLY DRM' shenanigans of GOG.

The important part for me is: GOG broke their last promise. Galaxy is mandatory for getting that DLC. And not only that, you have to register your game online, before you can get the DLC. For me, online registration is a classic form of DRM. You can call it whatever you like.

In any case, the reality is: GOG is selling games with DRM and Galaxy isn't 100% optional anymore.

And GOG keeps trying to push Galaxy on everyone. Not increasing its popularity by making it better, but instead increasing the number of users by making it more mandatory. So that more people install it with all the statistics and telemetry and verification (DRM) that may come with it or may be added to it later. It's not open source, after all. So they can use it to push all kinds of updates on users. Including retroactively adding DRM, as in the case of No Man's Sky.

That's why I will never support Galaxy and that's why I am warning of these broken promises here.
high rated
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: Go ahead and torrent the games you own.
If you're telling me that pirating games is the "proper" way of acquiring them, then why bother paying? And if you're telling me to buy them then still steal them after I paid, why not just buy them on Steam and download a cracked version? Or for older games, just grabbing a disc + "NoCD" (or source-port that side-steps it)? Either way, "Yo, thanks for the money but due to the need for client, in order to get your Linux product, here's a crowbar, there's the warehouse, go grab one out of a digital container" is not much of a sales pitch nor sounds like any store that I'd want to shop at...

avatar
AB2012: GOG have dropped so many other things that the day they stop providing offline installers via web browser is the same day they'll sign the death certificate for providing offline installers via Galaxy for the simple reason that 99% of the effort into making them is actually creating them (setting up the InnoSetup script, gathering together dependencies, registry keys, compiling the files, placing the files onto the servers, etc), and not that last 1% where a URL is automatically created in the game library to already existing files that requires zero effort).
^ So much this. It's mind-blowing that people cannot see the obvious here. If GOG wanted to save money / ease logistics of updating, etc, by not building offline installers, they wouldn't just hide the URL from website users whilst continuing to make them available via Galaxy (that would result in even fewer people using them giving them even more reason to scrap them). They'd be gone altogether for Galaxy users as well at the same time. And the only people then offering client-less DRM-Free versions would of course be the pirates. Whatever "geniuses" are claiming "as long as Galaxy remains 'DRM-Free' it doesn't matter if GOG completely scrap all offline installers" really aren't thinking things through very much when people buy here not just because the're DRM-Free but also because they don't like / want a client...
low rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: Some people think DRM free means client free, and it does not.
avatar
Cavalary: It does. By definition. If you're required to use a specific piece of software to be able to obtain your copy, digital means are used to manage/restrict your rights regarding said copy.
By that definition having to log into this website to download your copy is DRM. A website is just a hosted piece of software after all. The only difference between the client and the website is the fact that the website isn’t stored locally. This of course is an important distinction in some regards, but so for as your definition is concerned it isn’t.
avatar
BrianSim: If you're telling me that pirating games is the "proper" way of acquiring them, then why bother paying? And if you're telling me to buy them then still steal them after I paid, why not just buy them on Steam and download a cracked version? Or for older games, just grabbing a disc + "NoCD" (or source-port that side-steps it)? Either way, "Yo, thanks for the money but due to the need for client, in order to get your Linux product, here's a crowbar, there's the warehouse, go grab one out of a digital container" is not much of a sales pitch nor sounds like any store that I'd want to shop at...
I agree. GOG's sole selling feature is the guarantee of DRM-free product, which is why they should be on top of addressing the issue instead of letting things drift.
Post edited December 28, 2020 by Sabin_Stargem
high rated
avatar
BrianSim: If you're telling me that pirating games is the "proper" way of acquiring them, then why bother paying? And if you're telling me to buy them then still steal them after I paid, why not just buy them on Steam and download a cracked version? Or for older games, just grabbing a disc + "NoCD" (or source-port that side-steps it)? Either way, "Yo, thanks for the money but due to the need for client, in order to get your Linux product, here's a crowbar, there's the warehouse, go grab one out of a digital container" is not much of a sales pitch nor sounds like any store that I'd want to shop at...
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: I agree. GOG's sole selling feature is the guarantee of DRM-free product, which is why they should be on top of addressing the issue instead of letting things drift.
I would phrase it a bit differently. GOG's sole selling feature is that they managed to fool many of us into believing they guarantee DRM-free products, whereas in fact they do not.
avatar
Lifthrasil: ...
Perhaps you could create an official definition of DRM for use specifically in this thread. Then all of the discussion about what is or isn't called DRM could move to a different thread and this one could be more focused. On the other hand, it's good that the discussion keeps bumping the thread to the front page where people are more likely to find it.